CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 34Speech and dialogue systemsNatural Language Processing TechniquesArtificial Intelligence Applications

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test

Open access
Jones, Cameron R., Bergen, Benjamin K.·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2503.23674arXiv 2503.23674
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We evaluated 4 systems (ELIZA, GPT-4o, LLaMa-3.1-405B, and GPT-4.5) in two randomised, controlled, and pre-registered Turing tests on independent populations. Participants had 5 minute conversations simultaneously with another human participant and one of these systems before judging which conversational partner they thought was human. When prompted to adopt a humanlike persona, GPT-4.5 was judged to be the human 73% of the time: significantly more often than interrogators selected the real human participant. LLaMa-3.1, with the same prompt, was judged to be the human 56% of the time -- not significantly more or less often than the humans they were being compared to -- while baseline models (ELIZA and GPT-4o) achieved win rates significantly below chance (23% and 21% respectively). The results constitute the first empirical evidence that any artificial system passes a standard three-party Turing test. The results have implications for debates about what kind of intelligence is exhibited by Large Language Models (LLMs), and the social and economic impacts these systems are likely to have.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2503.23674

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LLMs consistently pass the Turing test.

    “they consistently pass the Turing test (20) as a result (14, 21, 22)”

    From The benefits and dangers of anthropomorphic conversational agents (2025) · cites this paper as [22]

  • The phenomenon of anthropomorphism changes significantly when the technology already exhibits highly human-like qualities, indistinguishable from the 'real deal.'

    “However, this phenomenon changes significantly when the technology already exhibits highly human-like (anthropomorphic) qualities, indistinguishable from the “real deal,” as is evidenced by the Turing Test (14, 21, 22).”

    From The benefits and dangers of anthropomorphic conversational agents (2025) · cites this paper as [22]

Citations

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Jones, C. R., & Bergen, B. K.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2503.23674
arXiv
2503.23674
OpenAlex
W4417050603
Cited by
33
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 19
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
Turing test, large language models, conversational AI, human-AI comparison, GPT-4, Llama 3.1, Eliza, GPT-4o, pre-registered evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review